The Money Trail vs. The Paper Trail Review

The Money Trail vs. The Paper Trail

by KK MacKinstry/

Homeowners trying to receive evidence of the money trail are stonewalled from obtaining the documents that would help them to prove their case and prevail.  Discovery is often blocked on ordinary grounds or on the basis of relevance.  Therefore Discovery must be executed with precision, caution and as part of the record.  Both the money trail and the paper trail matter, but revealing the money trail is much more difficult because in that discovery lies the smoking gun.

To date, foreclosures are based on fake, fabricated documents because the Megabanks deliberately designed underwriting requirements that required the destruction of the mortgage notes.  The servicer’s attorney typically proffers an original note that is robosigned by a party with no personal knowledge of the note or loan history and status.  Just because the documents appear facially valid and it contains all the elements it doesn’t mean the information the note or loan documents are true.

During the Neil Garfield Show broadcast on May 25, 2017 Neil Garfield advised that people fighting foreclosure consider the following:

#1  Why is the Lawyer’s client the servicer and not the trust or true creditor?

Homeowners should object and demand that the true creditor bring the lawsuit- not the servicer.  Most of the time the attorney doesn’t even know who the real client really is.  For more information please see:

Foreclosure Mills Don’t Know Their Client

#2 The Note is not the Original.

In the majority of foreclosures, the note was destroyed shortly after closing.  Furthermore, the note does not contain the borrower’s signature(s).  The note is a fake and a fabrication and the use of a fabricated note should involve governmental agencies and law enforcement action.  A note without a valid signature should not be admitted into the record or enforced.  Unfortunately, the only remedy for the homeowner typically occurs only after the home has been sold.

#3  Robosigners know nothing

You must object immediately that robosigner testimony does not provide a foundation, is hearsay and is leading.  Object quickly and if sustained move to strike or you sustain the objection.  You don’t have a second to spare when objecting.

#4 The Note is nothing but a memorialization

The note is a memorialization of an event that never happened because the third party that provided the funds was never identified.  Under the merger doctrine the debt merges into the note but when the creditor and the payee are different there can’t be a merger.  Thus, the note is no longer evidence of the debt.  You must be prepared and have relevant case law to argue the party on the note must bring the lawsuit, not a third party.

You can’t prove the money trail unless you are able to obtain discovery.   Without evidence it is impossible to determine if the transfer was a transfer of convenience or memorializes an actual purchase and sale.  The majority of transfers are merely ones of convenience to create the appearance of a legitimate transfer.

When there is no consideration provided for transfer it should be inferred that there is no consideration paid for the note.  When you are purchasing a property with real money it would be logical to assume you would retain proof of payment! Since there was no exchange of real money there is no evidence of consideration of payment.

The best way to obtain evidence of the money trail to justify discovery is by:

-cross examining the bank witness to establish that the witness has been coached on what to say and may have been given scripted notes but doesn’t know anything about the loan or note.

-asking the witness about the boarding process including who transferred and maintained the process as well as the elements of the transfer.

-question the witness if they conducted a thorough search of ownership or if someone else did.  If someone else did- strike as hearsay.

– ask witness if the records are kept at LPS during litigation.

-determine if there was fraud not only in the inducement but in the execution of documents.

A new and exciting litigation opportunity has been raised by investigator Bill Paatalo who believes that insurance and reinsurance companies are the ones really pulling the strings and directing the foreclosure.  Often the borrower is paying for the mortgage insurance by paying a higher interest rate for the lenders mortgage insurance without disclosing this fact to the borrower.  This trend was especially prevalent in early 2000 when lender’s were issuing 80/20 loans to get around the need for a down payment.

Paatalo believes this practice violated the 1998 Home Owners Protection Act which required disclosure of any kickbacks, higher premiums or interest rates under RESPA.  Through a practice called captive reinsurance agreements the borrower paid a higher interest rate in exchange for lender private mortgage insurance when it would have been less expensive for the borrower to receive a lower interest rate while paying for mortgage insurance themselves.

Paatalo encourages borrowers to review their loan closing document and look for any representations from the originator disclosing the higher interest rate incurred by the homeowner.  If the originator didn’t disclose this practice, and the homeowner just discovered the fraud, the homeowner likely still have a claim since the statute of limitations doesn’t begin to run until the fraud is discovered.

To learn more about investigator Bill Paatalo please go to:

For more information please listen to the following broadcast:

11 Responses

  1. Steve McCay in this article paid his house in full after thirty years and became homeless due to the corrupt courts of judicial miscarrraige and corrupt banksters.

  2. From what I have witnessed including my own case, the note is never filed with the courts. The lawyers come into court seventeen months after filing the case with an alleged note in their hands waiving it around stating we hold the note all else is moot and the judge buys the hearsay when you object. “They are holding the note”! The lawyers who have no personal knowledge are producing invalid affidavits y have personal knowledge. Telling the judge they were told by their boss another attorney who has no personal knowledge. My case is now in the WA Supreme court under Petition to Review it. The Appeals judges did the very same, seeing two different copies of the note. copies not originals . And an assignment seven years after the closing of the trust for a REMIC loan claiming JPMorgan Chase is successor in interest to WAMU therefore an alleged robo signer Rebecca Dietrich claiming to be a DBNTC employee as attorney in fact for JPMorgan Chase, who is successor in interest to WAMU is claimed by the judges every one of them in both courts that JPMorgan Chase is successor in interest to WAMU which is fraud. The REMIC status does not allow this and the lawyers are claiming they represent DBNTC representing LBMT2006-4 which I have a certified letter from the SEC of Delaware does not exist, and this trust is on Exhibit A in the DBNTC, FDIC WAMU JPMorgan Chase settlement for being a faulty trust. My home hangs on a prayer right now. No burden of proof at the start of the case and all fraudulent documents we have objected to. Two DIFFERENT NOTES! both undated and one endorsed one not endorsed. The judges need to be indicted and prosecuted. DBNTC allegedly claimed producing the note would be a burden on them when we asked for discovery. Then in the middle of discovery my attorneys firm declared BK and my attorney failed to compel so DBNTC allegedly claimed I waived my right to discovery. This reply from them proves they did not have the note at the time of filing the case. Undated does not prove when they had the note and we have demanded a full forensic investigation on the alleged note and objected to the note being authentic. My case started from modification fraud. I went pro se so now I have to do a “NO” Standing claim against DBNTC who gave up doing a non judicial and went judicially against me in Washington State. I hired a lawyer who betrayed me from the start so I then went pro se until I later found a group of attorneys who fight for homeowners. The attorney that is filing BK has been attacked by massive Disbar complaints by bankster attorneys. The lawyers claim they are holding the note so it does not matter the trust does not exist. All else is moot. Therefore a switch and third party not the Alleged trust is now the party being represented not when the case was filed. Alleged DBNTC proof of being DBNTC is a list taken off the OCC with DBNTC listed on it. No license no paperwork they are who they say they are and they claimed to be registered in Delaware but I have a certificate again from Delaware they are not registered in Delaware. They claimed on the complaint to be registered in Delaware. Misrepresentation? Now claiming that does not matter due to they don not have to be registered but the AG Washington case against ReconTrust states Wash law states they have to be registered in Washington but they are not registered in WA claiming the NBA states they do not have to be but the NBA only states the banks have the right to be doing business but must do what the laws of the states ask to do to be doing business in their state. The attorneys here are even confused on that issue. The Hawaii case BOA V Toledo-Reyes will hopefully help my case and several others that like my case won in Supreme courts including the US Lujan V Defenders of Wildlife. Lawyers affidavits are invalid and no authentic note burden of proof at the start of the case is what I am praying will turn my case around. It must be approved for review first. Holding my breadth right now and praying a lot. Two good judges were replaced in the WA Supreme court in the past couple of years and not seeing great results in this court since.

  3. Reblogged this on Mario Kenny.

  4. Insurance or more accurately described “secrete insurance” aka Pool Insurance or Default Insurance is exactly one of the new and illegal methods of creating new income. Also, a failed insurance company is one of the top 3 places to bury the evidence when it bankrupts.

  5. Hopefully the FOIA of Fannie and Fannie will help get thru this fraud.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: